Premium
Behavioural evidence for separate mechanisms of audiovisual temporal binding as a function of leading sensory modality
Author(s) -
Cecere Roberto,
Gross Joachim,
Thut Gregor
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
european journal of neuroscience
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.346
H-Index - 206
eISSN - 1460-9568
pISSN - 0953-816X
DOI - 10.1111/ejn.13242
Subject(s) - stimulus (psychology) , psychology , perception , stimulus modality , multisensory integration , auditory perception , sensory system , visual perception , communication , cognitive psychology , audiology , neuroscience , medicine
The ability to integrate auditory and visual information is critical for effective perception and interaction with the environment, and is thought to be abnormal in some clinical populations. Several studies have investigated the time window over which audiovisual events are integrated, also called the temporal binding window, and revealed asymmetries depending on the order of audiovisual input (i.e. the leading sense). When judging audiovisual simultaneity, the binding window appears narrower and non‐malleable for auditory‐leading stimulus pairs and wider and trainable for visual‐leading pairs. Here we specifically examined the level of independence of binding mechanisms when auditory‐before‐visual vs. visual‐before‐auditory input is bound. Three groups of healthy participants practiced audiovisual simultaneity detection with feedback, selectively training on auditory‐leading stimulus pairs (group 1), visual‐leading stimulus pairs (group 2) or both (group 3). Subsequently, we tested for learning transfer (crossover) from trained stimulus pairs to non‐trained pairs with opposite audiovisual input. Our data confirmed the known asymmetry in size and trainability for auditory–visual vs. visual–auditory binding windows. More importantly, practicing one type of audiovisual integration (e.g. auditory–visual) did not affect the other type (e.g. visual–auditory), even if trainable by within‐condition practice. Together, these results provide crucial evidence that audiovisual temporal binding for auditory‐leading vs. visual‐leading stimulus pairs are independent, possibly tapping into different circuits for audiovisual integration due to engagement of different multisensory sampling mechanisms depending on leading sense. Our results have implications for informing the study of multisensory interactions in healthy participants and clinical populations with dysfunctional multisensory integration.